A Chinese Carrier for ‘Science’ - Polidicks

I just hate those yellow bastards *rage* And the reason we're talking about power projection is because China is quite a bit different than the Soviet Union. It and its non existent puppets aren't bordering the U.S. and its allies. If it were to win in some theoretical war against the U.S. the Soviet navy model would not work because they have no means to transport ground forces. Unless they were to launch an offensive through dozens of countries and thousands of miles of steppes, deserts, hills, and mountains they have no way to win in a scenario. The Soviet Union and its puppets bordered NATO so they didn't need a navy to win. You really need to read up more on China because its clear they are trying to keep their GDP growth rate very high, or the appearance of being high, even if it neglects their poor and they have to build a shit ton of useless, uninhabited cities. Now it's obviously an unlikely scenario, but this is purely about a theoretical military conflict and China would never be able to win through military means alone without a navy similar to the U.S. A Soviet style navy is pretty useless for offensive naval operations which is why it was designed based on submarines and carriers like the Varyag because they knew they wouldn't stand a chance in a head to head naval battle, and knew they didn't need to because of their army. I'm not saying they have to be able to do so or even need to do so in real life, but if they were to win through conventional means, they'd need some form of blue water navy with force projection capability. Also, the tankers thing is important as well. Our 500 or so tankers would be invaluable for planes coming from South Korea, Taiwan, or Japan and all but guarantee air superiority. The lack of Chinese tankers means they wouldn't be able to put enough fighters in the air to counter the threat and the ones that do get in the air won't be able to fight long. [editline]2nd August 2011[/editline] Okay just realized my post kinda exaggerates the Chinese economy thing

[QUOTE=RBM11;31488499]They did build a shit ton of cities that are empty solely to boost their GDP. I kinda think that is something that is attempting to give the appearance of being mighty without actually being so but you explained it all away as[B] Sinophobia so my argument is clearly pointless.[/B][/QUOTE] Well it's quite pointless as it doesn't have anything to do with that Gunfox and I was writing about. We were talking about their military power. But if we put the "military talk" beside then it wouldn't be so pointless. The cities sure are projects created [B]partly[/B] to boost the GDP. But do you know how much it has boosted their GDP, because I don't, and you guys seem to make that it's like the cornerstone of their GDP growth. And you also seem to neglect the fact of a [U]real estate bubble [/U]and the fact that people actually are living in those cities, although of course not in the amounts the government hoped for. If you've read their 5 year plan: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-Year_Plans_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China#The_Twelfth_Five-Year_Guideline.2C_2011.E2.80.932015[/url] Then you will see that one line states that 36 million affordable apartments will be built. Although, the real problem is that they aren't affordable. [editline]2nd August 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=RBM11;31488585] You really need to read up more on China because its clear they are trying to keep their GDP growth rate very high, or the appearance of being high, even if it neglects their poor and they have to build a shit ton of useless, uninhabited cities. [/QUOTE] Neglecting their poor? China decreased the poverty rate from 64 % to 16 % in ~30 years. They raised the per capita growth with 8.7% in 15 years.

Yeah you just posted like a second after I typed I exaggerated lol. Okay I should have just talked about military power. China has a huge, pretty much unprotected coastline. The Soviets didn't face that threat at all. The U.S. navy would be much more of a deciding factor in a theoretical war due to this. In order to face the threat, they are creating tons of missiles to counter the threat of carriers. It may work, but missiles are quite expensive and are a one time use thing and may not be effective. Once they run out, they're screwed. Planes are an option but, in another thread, there was a link that said it would take something like 250 Sukhois Su-30 (iirc the type of plane) to take down [B]one[/B] cruiser. Now like I said, the lack of tankers means they won't even be able to get that many planes in the air. So now you have land based and carrier based planes bombing the shit out China. They're going to lose a lot of planes, but most likely to land based SAMs, not Chinese fighters. Another thing from that thread (which I can't find for some reason) said that the amount of ordnance that can be dropped by the USAF and USN in one day vastly exceeds anything the Chinese can possibly counter with. Let's assume that China has a Soviet style navy with tons of submarines and supporting carriers. Now assuming the U.S. has the backing of the U.K., which basically reinvented its navy as an ASW force to counter the Soviet submarine threat and it's not looking very good for China. EDIT: I meant more in terms of GDP versus actual wealth of the people, I worded it wrong. I meant they're increasing their total GDP while their workers remain poor. They seem to be focusing on rapid industrialization headed by a few massive corporations with their workers living in huge complexes making terrible wages and have few rights to fight it with, much like the West during the industrial revolution. They don't exactly have a voice either due to lack of basic freedoms. Granted its a huge improvement on the previous way of doing things and their GDP per capita is growing still, but it remains a long time before the average Chinese person will be in the same economic situation as in one of their potential military rivals. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_percentage_of_population_living_in_poverty[/url]

[QUOTE=RBM11;31489032]Yeah you just posted like a second after I typed I exaggerated lol. [/QUOTE] Wops, better edit some part so that I don't sound like an asshole :v:

[QUOTE=RBM11;31489032]Yeah you just posted like a second after I typed I exaggerated lol. Okay I should have just talked about military power. China has a huge, pretty much unprotected coastline. The Soviets didn't face that threat at all. The U.S. navy would be much more of a deciding factor in a theoretical war due to this. In order to face the threat, they are creating tons of missiles to counter the threat of carriers. It may work, but missiles are quite expensive and are a one time use thing and may not be effective. Once they run out, they're screwed. Planes are an option but, in another thread, there was a link that said it would take something like 250 Sukhois Su-30 (iirc the type of plane) to take down [B]one[/B] cruiser. Now like I said, the lack of tankers means they won't even be able to get that many planes in the air. So now you have land based and carrier based planes bombing the shit out China. They're going to lose a lot of planes, but most likely to land based SAMs, not Chinese fighters. Another thing from that thread (which I can't find for some reason) said that the amount of ordnance that can be dropped by the USAF and USN in one day vastly exceeds anything the Chinese can possibly counter with. Let's assume that China has a Soviet style navy with tons of submarines and supporting carriers. Now assuming the U.S. has the backing of the U.K., which basically reinvented its navy as an ASW force to counter the Soviet submarine threat and it's not looking very good for China.[/QUOTE] Talking about a theoretical war between China and United States is a pointless exercise, though. Let's face it, if it ever came to that, the nuclear option would be on the table. Scenarios regarding Taiwan (though not too likely with the growing interdependence via 3 links), North Korea, SE Asia, chinese interests in the middle east or the horn of Africa would be far more appropriate.

[QUOTE=Contag;31489145]Talking about a theoretical war between China and United States is a pointless exercise, though. Let's face it, if it ever came to that, the nuclear option would be on the table. Scenarios regarding Taiwan (though not too likely with the growing interdependence via 3 links), North Korea, SE Asia, chinese interests in the middle east or the horn of Africa would be far more appropriate.[/QUOTE] Yeah I know it's all pointless, it's more of an argument against people saying China's a superpower without knowing what the word means or that their airforce is a first rate force. [editline]2nd August 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Swebonny;31489062]Wops, better edit some part so that I don't sound like an asshole :v:[/QUOTE] I think my whole thing about the Sinophobia was dickish so it's all good.

I may be late but i heavily doubt this will be used for science. It's finishing too close to the end of the fuckin' world economy to be a coincidence. And with the missiles china just bought/made, China smells awful fishy, and it's not the hookers this time either.

[QUOTE=RBM11;31489200]Yeah I know it's all pointless, it's more of an argument against people saying China's a superpower without knowing what the word means or that their airforce is a first rate force[/QUOTE] living in a world without superpowers baby

[QUOTE=RBM11;31489032]Yeah you just posted like a second after I typed I exaggerated lol. Okay I should have just talked about military power. China has a huge, pretty much unprotected coastline. The Soviets didn't face that threat at all. The U.S. navy would be much more of a deciding factor in a theoretical war due to this. In order to face the threat, they are creating tons of missiles to counter the threat of carriers. It may work, but missiles are quite expensive and are a one time use thing and may not be effective. Once they run out, they're screwed. Planes are an option but, in another thread, there was a link that said it would take something like 250 Sukhois Su-30 (iirc the type of plane) to take down [B]one[/B] cruiser. Now like I said, the lack of tankers means they won't even be able to get that many planes in the air. So now you have land based and carrier based planes bombing the shit out China. They're going to lose a lot of planes, but most likely to land based SAMs, not Chinese fighters. Another thing from that thread (which I can't find for some reason) said that the amount of ordnance that can be dropped by the USAF and USN in one day vastly exceeds anything the Chinese can possibly counter with. Let's assume that China has a Soviet style navy with tons of submarines and supporting carriers. Now assuming the U.S. has the backing of the U.K., which basically reinvented its navy as an ASW force to counter the Soviet submarine threat and it's not looking very good for China.[/QUOTE] RBM, I won't say anything about impossible Sino-American War scenarios, but you might want to read this: [url=http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/files/2008_RAND_Pacific_View_Air_Combat_Briefing.pdf][b]Air Combat Past, Present and Future[/b][/url] And, [url=http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/Why-The-U.S.-Navy-Is-Falling-Apart-7-25-2011.asp][b]Why The U.S. Navy Is Falling Apart[/b][/url] For the Soviet matter, the USSR did have a significant piece of "exposed" coastline in the form of the Kola Peninsula that could be vulnerable to American carrier strikes in a WWIII scenario, but that's why the Soviets developed an anti-carrier battle group reconnaissance strike complex and various other improvements to the sub and surface fleets that made it possible to challenge U.S. naval power by the 1980s, and made possible by Admiral Sergei Gorshkov. The purpose of the Soviet Navy was to deny or disrupt NATO usage of the seas in support of a strategic offensive operation in a continental theater of strategic military action. [url=https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B06GppuET3sANWYxZjQxZTAtMjQ0OS00MTIxLThiYzctMDQ2NDUwN2NiMjVj&hl=en_US][b]Confronting the Soviets: Taking a Knife to a Gunfight[/b][/url] [quote]If it were to win in some theoretical war against the U.S. the Soviet navy model would not work because they have no means to transport ground forces.[/quote] On this point, does the PLA [i]need[/i] such a long range expeditionary capability the United States has? They can transport ground forces, but certainly not across the Pacific. But then again, does the PLA [i]need[/i] such a capability? The PRC has no intention of conducting the sort of offensive, expeditionary stuff Americans have done in the past. You should understand that what the U.S. military does is not, as I said before, the [i]ne plus ultra[/i] exemplar of military skill and capability. The PLA is not a half-successful carbon copy of the U.S. military, but it seems that is the view of many "American military über alles" folks.

Per this threads title, I always hear Americans justifying the U.S's exuberant military budget by explaining how warfare related inventions and innovations have benefits across all of society. In which case, I don't see how anyone can consider the Chinese intentions to be fallacious.

I'm just saying the Chinese are wasting money. It's like what they say about how most of an iceberg is not visible because it's underwater. Most of what makes a carrier useful is not the carrier itself, it's everything else that makes up the battlegroup. And people say "but the Soviets...", yeah and how useful were Soviet carriers to the Soviets? What did they ever accomplish because they had their carriers and that carrier doctrine? Exactly, nothing. On the other hand, is there a country in the last 50 years that HAS got a hell of a lot of use(in actual conflicts) from their carriers? Yes there is, and it's a country that has carrier battlegroups, what do you know? The only reason I doubt the science explanation is I'm having a hard time coming up with how refurbishing a used carrier helps scientifically. If it's about learning about carrier construction, I have to think that building your own from scratch will teach you more. If it's about using it as a giant floating lab, I have to think there are probably more cost effective floating labs you can build.

Sweet.

[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;31491695]I'm just saying the Chinese are wasting money. It's like what they say about how most of an iceberg is not visible because it's underwater. Most of what makes a carrier useful is not the carrier itself, it's everything else that makes up the battlegroup.[/quote] Sigh... Ex-Varyag is not a carrier that they'll put out to sea as an operational combat-capable vessel. If you ask me today or next year about the PLAN's carrier capability, then it is basically non-existent. Ten years down the road, who knows. [quote]And people say "but the Soviets...", yeah and how useful were Soviet carriers to the Soviets? What did they ever accomplish because they had their carriers and that carrier doctrine? Exactly, nothing.[/quote] You don't understand at all. You are judging the Soviet Navy from the wrong mindset. Their carriers - even their broken-up 75,000 ton, 70 plane carrying supercarrier [i]Ulyanovsk[/i] - were intended to provide air cover for subs and surface vessels in time of war, and tell me, did World War III break out? The Soviets did not see carriers as their "capital ship" since their focus on was submarines! They did "nothing" since the Soviet Navy was not intended for the offensive, aggressive roles the United States Navy has played during its Cold War conflicts. The Soviet Navy wasn't a "floating pile of junk" just because it did not have American-style carriers along with their lavish battlegroups. Different navies need to be [i]judged with different mindsets[/i]. This goes back about what I said how most military analysts in the '80s thought that the Soviet Army's lack of NCOs and Western-style initiative was a "weakness" and would ultimately hurt them in an actual war since they judged the Soviets on the standards and requirements of Western armies. [quote]On the other hand, is there a country in the last 50 years that HAS got a hell of a lot of use(in actual conflicts) from their carriers? Yes there is, and it's a country that has carrier battlegroups, what do you know?[/quote] While the U.S. Navy and its usage of carriers has been formidable in its own right, there are very valid alternatives out there. The "American way" is not the only, bottom-line way of utilizing carriers. That's not to say that the PLAN would follow or not follow the American model for their future carriers that they'll actually commission and put out to sea in 2015-2020. I [i]really[/i] don't get why people are thinking that ex-Varyag is something that they'll put out to sea as a "for-real" vessel. I guess they just don't know any better. Shame. When studying the Soviet Navy, it is important [i]not to have an ethnocentric view of the Soviets in American terms[/i]. The same logic applies for the PLA Navy. Previous posters' attempts to disparage the PLA Navy absolutely does them no credit.

I unironically wish China would just invade the US so we can just finally have some sort of reason to raise taxes again. WW2 was bad, but look at what it gave the world in the 1950s+.

[QUOTE=Tac Error;31477538]The People's Liberation Army Navy is not dumb! They do recognize that just taking a empty carrier out to sea is just that. As Swebonny mentioned earlier, ex-[i]Varyag[/i] is not their "for-real" carrier. Carriers of the U.S. Navy may need all of the mentioned extensive escorts in a carrier battle group, but other doctrines used by other countries *do* exist that doesn't require the extensive support American carriers require.[/QUOTE] True, and it depends on how it's being deployed. For simple anti-pirate work, an escort fleet of submarines and DDGs isn't exactly crucial, and a full air wing isn't necessary. It's obviously not designed to go fight a war with another nation, so the requirements are somewhat different. They can make use of it in an operational role and use it as a testbed without needing a full carrier fleet to round it off. By the way, isn't your avatar from Space: 1889?

The thing is the PLAN [i]does[/i] have its own carriers under construction right now, along with any supporting vessels tailored to their *own* requirements. There has been no verifiable information at this time about them. Yes, my avatar is from Space: 1889's Soldier's Companion book. Steampunk and Victorian science fiction are awesome. :v:

[QUOTE=Tac Error;31494952]The thing is the PLAN [i]does[/i] have its own carriers under construction right now, along with any supporting vessels tailored to their *own* requirements. There has been no verifiable information at this time about them.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I just meant that even without a full carrier fleet, there's a lot that can be done with a carrier. And it's mostly because the whole attendant fleet is only really necessary for all out open warfare where enemy submarines and missiles are a threat- for dealing with pirates none of that is needed. [QUOTE=Tac Error;31494952]Yes, my avatar is from Space: 1889's Soldier's Companion book. Steampunk and Victorian science fiction are awesome. :v:[/QUOTE] Soldier's Companion, that's right, I have it on a shelf somewhere. Awesome game.

[QUOTE=GunFox;31479996] China loves to appear grand, but it is smoke and mirrors. [/QUOTE] Mostly smoke. Can't see shit in the OP's pic.